How Does Physics Explain a Paratrooper's Survival After a 370-Meter Fall?

In summary: Your result should be more reasonable.Which might makes sense, seeing as he survived the fall with minor injuries. Correct, but your calculation will give you the work done by air resistance. In summary, the paratrooper fell 370 meters and landed in a snowbank, creating a crater 1.1 meters deep. Assuming his mass was 80 kg and his terminal velocity was 50 m/s, the work done by the snow on him was -100862.4 J. The work done on him by gravity was -292800 J, and the work done on him by air resistance as he fell was 191937.6 J. These calculations suggest that the work done by air resistance was greater than the work done by gravity
  • #1
uchicago2012
75
0

Homework Statement


In 1955 a paratrooper fell 370 meters after jumping from a plane without his parachute opening. He landed in a snowbank, creating a crater 1.1 meters deep, but suffered only minor injuries. Assuming his mass was 80 kg and his terminal velocity was 50 m/s, calculate
(a) the work done by the snow on him.
(b) the work done on him by gravity.
(c) The work done on him by air resistance as he fell.

Homework Equations


Wnon = Change in KE + Change in PE
Wg = m * g * d * cos theta
theta = angle between Wg and the displacement, d

The Attempt at a Solution


for a, I was just wondering if this looked correct:
I thought the force snow exerts on the paratrooper might be nonconservative, like air resistance, since it's sort've like friction. I don't know if that was a good idea.
so then Wnon = KE2 - KE1 + PE2 - PE1
where the initial is at y = 0 (the point at which the guy hits the snowbank - not the point at which he stops moving 1.1 m below the snowbank)
and the final is at y = -1.1, the point at which the guy stops moving
then I solved and found Wnon = -100862.4 J

for c,
I'm not sure what to use as my y component
Air resistance is nonconservative so
Wnon = KE2 - KE1 + PE2 - PE1
where the initial is 370 m in the air and the final is 0 or -1.1
if the final is zero, then it's relatively easy. But if it's -1.1 then I have to add in the force of gravity somehow.

Is it as easy as
Wg + Wa = KE2 - KE1 + PE2 - PE1
where I keep my initial point at 370 m and my final point at -1.1?
Then the work done by my air resistance winds up being considerably more than the work done by gravity.
Which might makes sense, seeing as he survived the fall with minor injuries
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
uchicago2012 said:

Homework Statement


In 1955 a paratrooper fell 370 meters after jumping from a plane without his parachute opening. He landed in a snowbank, creating a crater 1.1 meters deep, but suffered only minor injuries. Assuming his mass was 80 kg and his terminal velocity was 50 m/s, calculate
(a) the work done by the snow on him.
(b) the work done on him by gravity.
(c) The work done on him by air resistance as he fell.

Homework Equations


Wnon = Change in KE + Change in PE
Wg = m * g * d * cos theta
theta = angle between Wg and the displacement, d

The Attempt at a Solution


for a, I was just wondering if this looked correct:
I thought the force snow exerts on the paratrooper might be nonconservative, like air resistance, since it's sort've like friction. I don't know if that was a good idea.
That was a very good idea. In Intro Physics (Mechanics), most forces are non conservative, except gravity and spring forces, in particular, which are conservative forces.
so then Wnon = KE2 - KE1 + PE2 - PE1
where the initial is at y = 0 (the point at which the guy hits the snowbank - not the point at which he stops moving 1.1 m below the snowbank)
and the final is at y = -1.1, the point at which the guy stops moving
then I solved and found Wnon = -100862.4 J
excellent.
for c,
I'm not sure what to use as my y component
Air resistance is nonconservative so
Wnon = KE2 - KE1 + PE2 - PE1
yes
where the initial is 370 m in the air and the final is 0 or -1.1
if the final is zero, then it's relatively easy. But if it's -1.1 then I have to add in the force of gravity somehow.
There is no air resistance as such in the 1.1 m snowbank crater. That's the snow resistance force , which can be calculated from part a solution.
Is it as easy as
Wg + Wa = KE2 - KE1 + PE2 - PE1
where I keep my initial point at 370 m and my final point at -1.1?
Then the work done by my air resistance winds up being considerably more than the work done by gravity.
No that equation is incorrect...in several respects...try it using the correct equation, and using the final point as the point where the paratrooper just hits the snow.
 

FAQ: How Does Physics Explain a Paratrooper's Survival After a 370-Meter Fall?

1. What is the law of Conservation of Force?

The law of Conservation of Force, also known as the law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transformed from one form to another.

2. Why is the law of Conservation of Force important?

This law is important because it helps us understand the fundamental principles of the physical world. It allows us to make predictions about how energy will behave in various systems and plays a crucial role in many scientific fields, such as physics and engineering.

3. How does the law of Conservation of Force apply to everyday life?

The law of Conservation of Force applies to everyday life in many ways. For example, when we turn on a light switch, the electrical energy is transformed into light energy. When we throw a ball, the kinetic energy is transformed into potential energy as it reaches its highest point and then back into kinetic energy as it falls.

4. Can the law of Conservation of Force be violated?

No, the law of Conservation of Force is a fundamental law of physics and has been proven to hold true in every situation. It has been tested and verified countless times through experiments and observations.

5. How does the law of Conservation of Force relate to the concept of perpetual motion?

The law of Conservation of Force states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but perpetual motion machines claim to generate energy indefinitely without any external input. Therefore, perpetual motion machines violate this law and are not possible according to our current understanding of physics.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
5K
Back
Top